North Tower Exploding

Truthers also say that a gravity-driven collapse of the twin towers is impossible because the top quarter of a building cannot crush down the lower three-quarters. Chandler and others claim that this would violate Newton's third law of motion.

If anyone is inclined to believe this, I ask you to look at the last part of this vérinage compilation (3:13 mark):


Chandler uses other clips from the same compilation in his videos, but never mentions the last part.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Hello, Right. We don't have to rely on what it looked like.

The most precise measurements of the collapse were made by Frank Greening, who analyzed the video record to track the motion of a fixed point at the top of each tower until it was obscured by dust. The results are on page 902 of this paper in the Journal of Engineering Mechanics:

http://www.civil.northwestern.edu/people/bazant/PDFs/Papers/476.pdf

For example, the North Tower fell 30 meters in the first 3 seconds, an average acceleration of

2x30 / 3^2 = 6.67 m/sec^2 = 0.68g - two thirds of free fall.

9/11 truthers, however, say that the collapse was "at or near free fall", from which they infer that the support columns must have been cut by explosives on every storey before the descending mass reached that level. This is one of their big proof points for "controlled demolition". But their data is/are faulty.
Click to expand...

This is a 30 second clip of a reinforced concrete column that demonstrates the explosive nature of collapse. It is slowly overloaded by hydraulics, which is similar to the mechanism causing the first of the WTC floors to collapse, a constant load with the columns being weakened by heating. Now imagine a dynamic load, the intact floors above falling onto those below.

 
survivor quilt must be horrible


questioning why you made it out and others didnt


I guess its one benifit of being a non believer and being able to know that there was no rhyme or reason why you made it out.


he effected his own survival by being against the wall


but it was still just a very huge chunk of luck
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
Controlled Opposition posted:
"...you destroy your argument when you say that the fire (now singular) burned in a single spot, producing sufficient heat to evenly heat the structures of both towers, causing them to collapse."


I said no such thing. Get the facts straight if you want to be taken seriously.

CO added: "The 28 pages should be enough for one with critical thinking skills to realize that the official version is bovine excrement."

For years you were telling everyone that the redacted pages of the Congressional Inquiry showed that Israel did it. Then the pages were released ... and not a word about Israel.
Click to expand...

Even the 28 pages were redacted, but they do say that multiple foreign governments were behind 9-11. The evidence against Israel is overwhelming. Your problem is that you are a statist, who can't stand the idea that elements of "our" government would participate in the murder of it's own constituents, or cover up such criminal activity. That's why the years that you and I have been debating 9-11 have been a waste of my time.
 
Controlled Opposition said:
Even the 28 pages were redacted, but they do say that multiple foreign governments were behind 9-11. The evidence against Israel is overwhelming. Your problem is that you are a statist, who can't stand the idea that elements of "our" government would participate in the murder of it's own constituents, or cover up such criminal activity. That's why the years that you and I have been debating 9-11 have been a waste of my time.
Click to expand...

As usual you're putting words into my mouth. My argument is not that elements of the government WOULDN'T have done it (although what for is hard to imagine). It's that they COULDN'T have done it in anything like the way that 'truthers' claim.

There is no evidence that anyone was involved except Islamist terrorists, possibly with assistance from some level of the labyrinthine KSA government. They did it by flying jetliners full of fuel into the towers, which burned on several floors until the combined effects of impact damage and heat caused some perimeter columns to buckle, triggering the collapse.

Here it is happening. Watch:

 
Last edited:
Norman Mineta was in the White House bunker with Cheney on the morning of 9/11. Did Mineta say that he heard Cheney order a stand down of air defenses? Many 9/11 truthers believe that he did:

"When faced with former Secretary of Transportation Norman Mineta’s testimony — about Cheney’s stand-down order as the plane approached the Pentagon — defenders of the official story have tried to discredit Mineta by saying that he got his times mixed up."
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2007/03/minetas-testimony-confirmed.html

Mineta never mentioned a stand-down order. What did he say? Here is his testimony to the 9/11 Commission:

"There was a young man who had come in and said to the vice president, 'The plane is 50 miles out. The plane is 30 miles out.' And when it got down to, 'The plane is 10 miles out,' the young man also said to the vice president, 'Do the orders still stand?' And the vice president turned and whipped his neck around and said, 'Of course the orders still stand. Have you heard anything to the contrary?' Well, at the time I didn't know what all that meant."
https://www.9-11commission.gov/archive/hearing2/9-11Commission_Hearing_2003-05-23.htm

How do we get from that to "Cheney's stand-down order"? Like this:

"Had Cheney given the expected order – the order to have an aircraft approaching the Pentagon shot down – we could not explain why the young man asked if the order still stood. It would have been abundantly obvious to him that it would continue to stand until the aircraft was actually shot down. His question would make sense, however, if the orders were ones that seemed unusual."
https://conspireality.tv/2008/09/12/norman-mineta’s-testimony-suggests-911-was-an-inside-job/

So, the argument goes, orders to the USAF to shoot down a civilian airliner would have seemed quite usual and would certainly not have been queried by the aide before being passed on. Therefore, "the orders" must have been stand-down orders.

Convinced?
 
10 reasons why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed

1. They were designed to withstand jetliners, explosives, implosives, mamathermite, nukes, big ray guns, and the End Times. Underwriters Laboratories certified this.

2. If they had collapsed at free fall they would have fallen through to China in 45 minutes. Instead it took several months for the steel to get there.

3. The Empire State Building didn't collapse when an airplane hit it, and that was built when New York was still in the Empire.

4. If two buildings that size had collapsed, the shockwaves would have started a tsunami that would have wiped out New Jersey. Somebody would have noticed.

5. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes didn't collapse when he dropped them, so why would towers made of steel and concrete collapse?

6. No other 110 story skyscraper hit by a jetliner at 500 mph and set on fire has ever collapsed.

7. Each story was 12 ft high, and it takes 0.87 secs for an object to fall 12 ft. Do the math: 110 x 0.87 = 95.7. It would have taken over a minute and a half for those towers to collapse!

8. The pyroclastic clouds would have suffocated everybody in Manhattan. See #4.

9. The New World Order loves tall buildings, that's why they hang out at the UN. They would never have allowed it.

10. How could two 1300 ft buildings collapse without damaging the surroundings? At least one other building would have collapsed later, say around 5 pm.
 
Controlled Opposition said:
You do know that those buildings were designed to withstand hits by aircraft. Start from there in explaining your bizarre theory of 9-11.
Click to expand...

No they weren't.. The Empire State building was conventional brick and mortar hit by a small aircraft that was lost and flying at low speeds.

NOTHING like the cantilevered, aluminum skinned WTC.
 
kudzu said:
No they weren't.. The Empire State building was conventional brick and mortar hit by a small aircraft that was lost and flying at low speeds.

NOTHING like the cantilevered, aluminum skinned WTC.
Click to expand...

The intense heat removed much of the tensile strength from the steel girders. The fireproofing had been damaged by the collision of the aircraft.
 
Havana Moon said:
The intense heat removed much of the tensile strength from the steel girders.
Click to expand...


The heat caused the steel floor joists to sag, which pulled the perimeter columns inwards. Some of the columns, already damaged by airplane impact, buckled and the collapse started. You can see it happening here:





Btw, do you have anything approaching a sense of humor? Just wondering.
 
Havana Moon said:
The intense heat removed much of the tensile strength from the steel girders. The fireproofing had been damaged by the collision of the aircraft.
Click to expand...

After that first bombing incident at the Towers.. I don't remember the year.. They promoted a narrative about it being built to withstand airliners.. It wasn't true..but, the Twin Towers was overbuilt to begin with and they had a hell of a time renting it up. In the early years it was a bit of a white elephant.
 
Tranquillus in Exile said:
10 reasons why the Twin Towers could not have collapsed

1. They were designed to withstand jetliners, explosives, implosives, mamathermite, nukes, big ray guns, and the End Times. Underwriters Laboratories certified this.

2. If they had collapsed at free fall they would have fallen through to China in 45 minutes. Instead it took several months for the steel to get there.

3. The Empire State Building didn't collapse when an airplane hit it, and that was built when New York was still in the Empire.

4. If two buildings that size had collapsed, the shockwaves would have started a tsunami that would have wiped out New Jersey. Somebody would have noticed.

5. Richard Gage's cardboard boxes didn't collapse when he dropped them, so why would towers made of steel and concrete collapse?

6. No other 110 story skyscraper hit by a jetliner at 500 mph and set on fire has ever collapsed.

7. Each story was 12 ft high, and it takes 0.87 secs for an object to fall 12 ft. Do the math: 110 x 0.87 = 95.7. It would have taken over a minute and a half for those towers to collapse!

8. The pyroclastic clouds would have suffocated everybody in Manhattan. See #4.

9. The New World Order loves tall buildings, that's why they hang out at the UN. They would never have allowed it.

10. How could two 1300 ft buildings collapse without damaging the surroundings? At least one other building would have collapsed later, say around 5 pm.
Click to expand...

:coolstorybro:
 
Some of those '10 reasons' are a bit recherché and might only be picked up by truthers, or someone who has argued with them for years as I have.

Truthers say the collapse was triggered by pre-planted explosives and/or thermite. Then once it started, they ask why didn't it stop - there must have been more explosives all the way down. See the OP.

I've shown them the video of the perimeter columns buckling inwards, and they still say it was explosives. It's like arguing with Trumpsters. :)

P.S. Nice pic.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top